User talk:BBrihem

SPI
BBrihem, I notice that the language you use to attack Worobey and phylogenetics is similar to language used in the past; also, I find interesting the fact that most of the single-purpose IP addresses engaged in edit warring against consensus are located in the US Midwest, with a few possible exceptions. Accordingly, I've opened an investigation into possible sock or meatpuppetry at WP:SPI, where I encourage you to give your version of the last several months at Origin of AIDS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

From the enquiry:

"Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments: Sebastiangarth and BBrihem are technically unrelated to each other and to the IPs (hundreds of kilometers apart). -- Luk talk 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions: Per CheckUser evidence above, I am will be taking no action. Tiptoety talk 02:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)". Just to be clear, I wasn't making the slightest attack upon phylogenetics or upon any scientist involved in this line of work: I was making the point that the date produced by an analysis assuming a single point of origin for the virus in the 1959 and 1960 samples can't, in itself, constitute a disproof of a theory positing multiple points of origin at a later date. There's nothing wrong with phylogenetics in itself. BBrihem (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

appeal for editorial intervention as valuable data on OPV/AIDS debate being, I believe, not fairly censored as of now
Hi, the editors are not letting me post my link on the OPV/AIDS debate. I have written in defense of that link. I hope you can help given the importance of this topic for humanity; I hope the editors can take the time to see the movie and decide whether it deserves entry or not.

I thank the respected editors for their prompt response. I want to point out something: - if you see my movie - you will see that it is already BASED on all the published material and sources - from Nature, Science, etc. that you have added to your quite impressive (for people not involved in the debate directly) entry on polio-aids. Polio-aids, if true, has immense implications for human life and safety, speaking from the point of view of our species. Hence it is important, that the editors ascertain whether I have TRULY broken the rules. If my video, is only a visual representation, of what has been already discussed in print in your article, then what is the harm in including it. I chose the visual representation of communication because there have been so many cranky theory of aids origin, not to mention the billion dollar lawsuits that some might face, if polio aids is true, that I felt that a visual representation of already published scientific article was important, especially since Wiki itself suffers from a paucity of images. Yes, over the years, my research in Congo led to to believe that there was more truth to polio aids then the scientific mainstream journals (which presented only a politically correct version) represented - and which lay people thought to be the unvarnished truth. But this is not about my point of view. In your article, you have quoted several scientific sources discussing polio - aids, albeit, cautiously, some dismissive, some supportive. What if somebody put up a visual image of all of this debate. Wouldn't have count as an Wiki entry - being simply a DIFFERENT mode of communication, in order to make dense scientific ideas accessible in a more democratic fashion, free of jargon, using the power of the audio-video medium, which many feel - to be the language of the future? Just as Wiki is the encyclopaedia of the future. Thus, given the important of the topic, I humbly request the editors to SEE my movie. It will, if nothing else, inform your various debates on this page. It is only 1 hour or so, in 8 parts. I put it up for free on youtube, because of the importance of the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/fluxsid

is the link of my investigative movie, largely shot in NE Congo - called Private Congo Investigations If you can locate the paper published at the Royal Society conference by Daniel Low-Beer you will see that the paper is based upon my work, and I am thanked accordingly. I am a scientist trained at Oxford, and have been researching the origin of AIDS for several years. A rough cut of my film - made over several years - in North East Congo - is up on youtube. In it, among other things, light is shed on the contamination that Dr. Albert Sabin had found in Koprowski's Leopoldville vaccination campaign which started in Aug 1958, approx. one year before the world's first HIV positive blood sample found from the same city. Several interviews with Dr. Koprowski himself are also in the video which have never been seen before - including instances of him not remembering the dates of his own world's 1st mass vaccination campaign, and his post - dating the date to after the 1959 sample. Dr. Leonard Hayflick, a very famous scientist, who was head of Dr. Koprowski's Wistar Lab, is also seen making points relevant to the idea that chimp cells were used secretly for purposes of securing a patent. And finally, visuals of Assistants at Lindi back in the 50s, talk about what was done, and about chimp kidneys being sent to the USA. All of this is relevant to OPV/AIDS and the origin of AIDS. You have only to see my move. But somebody keeps removing my link - I am new to Wiki, but please try and let my link remain, as it sheds light on the entire discussion here and more